As HBO’s “Game of Thrones” reaches its midway point of season 4 this Sunday, George R.R. Martintook to his blog to address the hot topic of spoilers. He wrote:

How do you define “spoiler?”

If something happens on the show before it happens in the book, I suppose one could call that a spoiler.

If something happens on the show, but happens very differently in the books, is that still a spoiler?

If something happens on the show, but never happens in books, what precisely was spoiled?

And how many children did Scarlett O’Hara have, anyway?

In this last line, Martin refers to one of the major differences between the book and the film for “Gone With the Wind”: Scarlett O’Hara had three children in the book, and only one in the movie. What is “right” in storytelling when the medium is different? Is there such a thing as true fidelity when a book becomes a TV show or film?

As the fantasy writer works to complete “A Song of Ice and Fire,” with “The Winds of Winter” and “A Dream of Spring,” fans have grown restless, analyzing plot points and underlying symbols on forums like Westeros and Winter Is Coming.

Many other television series are also based on books and short stories, like “True Blood,” “House of Cards,” “Justified” and “Orange Is the New Black.” But part of what sets “Thrones” apart are two things: an ardent fan base of the books—the first of which published in 1996—and a growing mainstream audience bolstered by HBO’s show, with its “Red Wedding” memes and “Saturday Night Live” parodies.

Reader @douglascohen responded to Martin’s comment, saying: “[F]or someone like me, your story is sacred. HBO’s series is great, but it’s not canon. I want to experience every little revelation from the source himself. So I’m sad to say that I’m now on high alert with every HBO episode going forward, because if something is revealed ahead of your books again I have to stop watching the series until your next book comes out.”

After some discussion, Martin closed the comments thread–which stemmed from a blog post about Sibel Kekilli meeting Woody Allen–with this:

Okay, guys. Enough. I have let through a lot of comments about spoilers and the show here. and even answered some, but now I am closing comments. All this stuff is off topic.

This post was about Sibel, Woody Allen, and pastrami and corned beef, not about the TV series.

Readers, what do you think? Is it better to read the books first, and watch the series later? Or is it better to be surprised by the TV show, and then read the books for background?